Romania 1963 Error - Missing The Red Rocket

What is the best testing method to ensure the rocket was not removed afterwards? UV lamp testing shows no markings, HQ scan(over 1200 dpi) shows no damage to the paper. The remaining blue color is no different than an original with rocket.

Some stamps had colors removed chemically (8 cents US Copernicus as an example), but how do you test such a stamp?

I have a few of these 1963 errors in my collection and your advice is greatly appreciated. Do I have the real or the fake ones?



*** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***

Putting it under a UV light should show if a chemical was used to remove the red color.

Thank you for your answer.
Nothing under UV light and I am using a HQ Lighthouse 366nm lamp. Is this a definitive proof?

Here is your image with the red channel split out, to my eye I think I see some remaining red present.


Don

Please let me know what program and option have you used to show it like that?
From your photo I can also see similar stains present on the left side of the block where is the white paper. I am not clear if this option can confirm the stamp is not real, however I will do it myself on a very high resolution after you tell me the soft and option.
Thank you

I used Paint Shop Pro but any graphics good application has the ability to split out the color channels. The key with using digital analysis is to not use any filter/process which adds data, splitting the color channels only subtracts data. Another example of color channel splitting is RetroReveal http://stampsmarter.com/learning/Ho...oReveal.html

I agree this analysis is not definitive, it is only an additional piece to the puzzle.
Don

I've managed to replicate your Photoshop work. Here is a comparison between one with and one without rocket. If any red will be there should shine. Also on both are very visible the stains in the white paper, so this is something that can be discarded from conclusion.
Another thing I did was to turn each channel off, invert colors and posterize. No visible traces of red rocket. BTW I've used 1200dpi scans but I can't post here such a large file.

Any other options for investigation?
Thank you

This is much too broad of a statement. I would politely re-phrase the above as "Putting it under a UV light MIGHT show" ... something amiss but not every chemical is UV reactive. Red is at the end of the visible spectrum and is more easily sun-faded.




No. Not definitive. UV examination can often reveal alterations, but absence is not proof to the contrary by itself. One needs to try (and pass) with several analytical tools: both long- and short-wave UV, high magnification examination, Don's color analysis, etc. Each done side by side with a normal stamp. Your journey is just beginning. Ultimately, most collectors/buyers would insist on a certificate.

On a different tangent - it appears unused. Does it have gum? Also, what does the specialty literature say about this error? What catalogs recognize it? How could it be differentiated from printer's waste?

It has immaculate gum. And is a listed error in Michel catalog, also is well known in Romania.
However it's also known that are fakes, even Michel has a warning.
I've done a huge 9600 dpi scan and it shows the paper details at very finest but no traces of red. UV light is clear. Gum in the back is perfect (see photo).

Pretty much anything modern that might be used to remove the color will be florescent. And also probably affect the gum. And the purple is fairly unstable as well; sunlight would damage it to the point of being obvious.

Again, too broad of a brush.

What one is looking for with both long-wave and short-wave UV is not fluorescence or its absence. One is looking for relative differences in appearance across the entire area of the philatelic item. Various treatments and alterations may cause increases, decreases, or unevenness in how the paper/ink appear. Treatments often show differently. Period.

So far, your stamp looks pretty good. The original condition of the gum side is a positive point.

P.S. I have a degree in chemistry.

I don't have a degree in chemistry, but I have years of expertising and looking at stamps under UV.

Guys, please don't fight over testing issues. I appreciate all the inputs.
Unfortunately I don't have a "genuine fake" to compare, so I assume that after all these UV tests, HQ scans and Photoshop color removal that I have a genuine error.
And I always listen for more testing options.
Regards

If this is legit, the question is how much is it worth?

$325 or best offer on ebay.